Why Carbon Action Focuses on Reduction, Not Offsetting
- Carbon Action
- 4 days ago
- 4 min read
The urgency to meet the emissions reduction goals of the Paris Agreement demands genuine, measurable action, yet the path to corporate responsibility is often complicated by the confusing and increasingly discredited world of carbon offsetting. Many businesses find themselves navigating a complex landscape of claims, unsure whether their climate initiatives are leading to true environmental impact.
At Carbon Action ®, we eliminate this uncertainty. We hold a fundamental belief: true climate progress means tackling emissions at their source. Our certification programme is deliberately action-oriented, designed to move beyond accounting shortcuts to address the root causes of climate change.
What is offsetting?
Offsetting broadly refers to funding a reduction in GHG emissions, or an increase in carbon storage (e.g. through land restoration or the planting of trees) that is used to compensate for emissions that occur elsewhere [1] - typically within the purchasing company’s own operations.
At face value, offsetting can appear to be a swift pathway for businesses to take financial responsibility for their emissions generating activities and quickly reach emissions reduction goals. However, the reality presents two major dangers that can compromise its ability to drive meaningful action.
The Two Key Issues with Carbon Offsetting Schemes
Offsetting can Postpone Genuine Action
We’ve seen that for some businesses, the ability to purchase offsets rather than taking concrete steps to reduce emissions at the source can be a roadblock to progress. It can encourage organisational inaction and postpone the implementation of critical reduction initiatives.
Furthermore, by reducing the urgency to change internally, the purchase of offsets runs the risk of inadvertently stifling market demand for the crucial technological changes necessary to achieve systemic emissions reductions across the global economy.
The Credibility Crisis in Offset Quality
The greater danger of offsetting lies in its credibility crisis. A shocking number of offsets simply don't deliver any additional climate benefits.
For any offset to be credible, it must satisfy the following criteria:
Additionality: Was the reduction/removal beyond what would have occurred naturally or legally without the revenue generated by the carbon credits?
Permanence: Is the climate benefit secure and maintained over the long term, with a low risk of reversal?
Accountability (No Double Counting): Is the reduction quantified accurately and claimed only once?
Best practice guidance, as established by Principle 1B of the Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting [2], guides users to:
“Ensure social and environmental integrity. Credits and projects must be additional, monitored, verifiable, correctly accounted for, and have low risk of reversal or negative unintended consequences to ecosystems and communities”.
However, existing voluntary market offsets consistently fail to be additional, permanent, and not double counted. One major study analysed the impact of almost 1 billion tonnes of CO2-e worth of carbon credits, estimating that less than 16% of those credits constituted real emissions reductions [3].
Or to put it another way, 84% of the carbon credits did not constitute real emissions reductions.
Meaning that most purchasers of carbon credits are getting lemons.
Although sophisticated offset certifiers strive to identify high-quality credits, they struggle with the issue of double claiming due to the limited international implementation of necessary carbon accounting rules (Corresponding Adjustments) [4].
Double Claiming: The critical accounting failure of carbon markets
Double claiming occurs when two separate parties claim the same emissions reduction or removal. This systemic failure often takes the form of:
An organisation purchasing offsets to claim carbon neutrality.
The project’s host country simultaneously counting the reduction/removal toward its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
Two parties cannot claim credit for the same climate action. If the reduction is already included in the host country's official climate commitments, the corporate use of the offset fails the tests of additionality and accountability. Double counting effectively negates the claimed environmental benefit of the purchase.
Put simply, a double-counted offset is a waste of the purchasing organisation’s investment and a net loss for global climate action.
Carbon Action: The Difference is Measurable
The market is shifting. As a result of these systemic flaws, offsets and claims of organisations being ‘carbon zero’ (or similar) are attracting increased scrutiny in the market [5].
The recent move by the European Parliament to ban misleading sustainability claims backed by offsetting [6] underscores the growing recognition that true progress lies in direct emissions reduction.
Focusing on Action, Our Core Philosophy
As the name implies, the Carbon Action certification programme is deliberately action-oriented, designed to drive meaningful change by helping businesses first understand and then crucially, reduce their emissions. This approach often requires strategic investment in new technologies, processes, and infrastructure - investments we encourage businesses to prioritise over the purchase of external offsets.
By shifting the focus of certification away from a carbon neutral, or net zero status, Carbon Action encourages businesses to prioritise the development of an emissions reduction plan, and strategically reinvest the money that would have been spent annually on purchasing (potentially low-quality) offsets directly into their own operations.
This capital can be deployed directly to fund crucial internal reduction projects, such as upgrading to more energy-efficient equipment, implementing supply chain efficiencies, or investing in renewable energy infrastructure. The added benefit of these investments is that they don’t just help green your business, they help you improve productivity and resilience in a changing climate and marketplace. This internal action plan, focused on tackling emissions at the source, must be established and underway before any consideration is given to carbon offsetting.
Offsets should only serve as a supplementary tool to address unavoidable residual emissions, and only if those offsets meet the highest standards of additionality, permanence, and accountability.
Ready to Move Beyond Empty Claims? Take action and get in touch with our team.
References: